Full Size Jeep Network

Blake wrote:Well the plan has changed.

AA was gonna be at least 3 weeks to ship the 401/700r4 adapter so I canceled the order. The las cruces trip is 5 weeks leaving me with only 2 weeks to fix all the bugs. I was also getting worried about the durability of a 700r4.

So long story short, I've decided to put the 401 from the J20 into the waggy (which needs a motor). In fact, we've already pulled the 401 out and put the J20 besides the house. So for now, the J20 is peacefully resting, awaiting a future drive train. I keep thinking 5.3 swap....

The waggy is gonna be b@d@$$ though

No worries. You have plenty of FSJ options there. I wonder if a 5.3 will make a good tow engine for the J20... Of course, I like the idea to get GW powered up on a 401. How about the ole Honcho?

I wonder if the 5.3 will be enough power too.... I bought a new '99 Chevy 3/4 ton with the 6.0/4l80e back in the day. It had lots of power and I used it to haul my junk around all the time...

As for the Honcho; it's just sitting there waiting to go 'wheeling. It has no issues

The 5.3L puts out 270-305hp depending on the year. Which is quite a bit more than any FSJ ever came with. Possible more than any AMC if you go by NET HP. The high compression 390 may have been over 300 NET, I have not checked.

So I would not worry about power. Although really you can get a 6.0 for nearly the same price. The 5.3L just gets better fuel economy.

JMO, but if you are gonna tow with it and if the cost of the 5.3 vs 6.0 is negligible, go with the 6.0 and have no doubt about having enough power when you are done. Nothing worse than trying to tow a trailer and being down on power.

Blake wrote:As for the Honcho; it's just sitting there waiting to go 'wheeling. It has no issues

Oh, I thought you said the 360 ran dry once and was kind of abused. Drive it like you stole it. B-)

fulsizjeep wrote:

Blake wrote:As for the Honcho; it's just sitting there waiting to go 'wheeling. It has no issues

Oh, I thought you said the 360 ran dry once and was kind of abused. Drive it like you stole it. B-)

yes - the AMC 360 in the Honcho has been ran for extended periods of time with ZERO oil and ZERO oil pressure (twice). It's also been sank in the lake, mistakenly had old oil mixed with oil absorbent poured in, rolled upside down, been rode hard and put up wet.

Still runs like a champ and has good oil pressure though

Those are the very reasons why I'm not even considering driving it down to Las Cruses.

Price difference between 6.0 and 5.3 isn't small, in my opinion. 6.0 does make more power, though, but I doubt you'd really notice much problem with a 5.3 in the j20.

What about that 8.1? Seems that would be nice...

Blake wrote:What about that 8.1? Seems that would be nice...

My Uncle had one in his old 2500 (Think it was an '02?). Traded it for a Duramax. It had gobs of power, it actually felt a lot more punchy than the duramax. But... it averaged 9mpg. The duramax gets 16 on average.

So while the 8.1 is awesome for power and torque, I would much prefer a 6.0. Actually, the newer 6.0's have more HP than the 8.1, but a lot less torque (8.1 has 455lb ft). Still wish I had the cash to get an EcoBoost V6 out of a newer F150. 420lb ft of torque at 20+ mpg. And that torque is flat from (I think) 1600rpm to 5500rpm (Going off memory, its around there).

But for you, I would go with the 5.3 or the 6.0.

Yeah, I'm on Denver craigslist looking for potential swaps. Not much out there for the 8.1. I actually like the idea of the 8.1 because it's dang near 500CI. 496 I believe.

My daily drive is only 10 miles round trip, so the mpg doesn't really matter that much. If I'm towing the Honcho and getting horrible mileage, so be it. 'Wheeling is expensive anyway.

I've pretty much ruled out any diesel swaps, but wouldn't be opposed if one fell into my lap...

Hey Blake, with your awesome fab skills, you should figure out how to stuff a 6.8 V10 and the 6 speed manual in there. Gobs of power and as good of milage as you can really get with an engine that big.

Nah, don't want a manual tranny....

I think you would be hard pressed to fit a V10 in an FSJ engine bay. Its just not very long. The i6 only fits because the firewall has a notch in it. And even then there is only about 1/2" of clearance.

You wouldn't want a 8.1L either. It's an oil burner even after break in. One of our work vehicles has a 8.1 and we took it in under warranty because of the oil consumption (about 1 qt per 3000 miles) and the dealer told us they were all like that, pointed it out in the owner's manual.

The 327 is an excellent engine. Makes good power for its displacement. However, my neighbor has a newer Tahoe with one and the engine controls are getting all wonky. Maybe try to find an older one?

BGW wrote:The 327 is an excellent engine. Makes good power for its displacement. However, my neighbor has a newer Tahoe with one and the engine controls are getting all wonky. Maybe try to find an older one?

The GM 5.3L isnt a 327. Its technically 325cid and doesn't share a single part with the old SBC 327. While current GM V8's are still push rod V8's, they share nothing with the old engines.

And chances are if hes looking for a Junkyard engine, it would be a late 90's to early 00's engine.

You know Blake... You can prolly get another Dodge 360 with low miles at just about any junk yard and save some bucks on a conversion. I bet the Atlas will take to it just as well too. B-)

Stuka wrote: While current GM V8's are still push rod V8's, .

Really? Wow. I guess that's why mechanics think they are easy to work on.

BGW wrote:

Stuka wrote: While current GM V8's are still push rod V8's, .

Really? Wow. I guess that's why mechanics think they are easy to work on.

And why they make quite a bit less power per liter than Ford V8's while getting worse fuel economy to boot. The newer ones do have variable valve timing, but its not the greatest implementation since they cannot control intake and exhaust independently.

It's only been the last 3 or 4 years that the LS series have been overtaken in the mpg arena. The fact that they make as much HP and torque with only two valves per cylinder speaks volumes to the engineers that designed them.

I still think that they're probably the easiest modern engine today to transplant, but that's just me.